The fact that the existence of that knowledge ipso facto precludes free will.

This is blurring the line between what free will is and what determinism to me.

Let's say (just because I like to say it, however irrelevant it is) that there are an infinite number of universes containing all possibilities between them (as I said earlier). Within one universe one person makes all their decisions of their own free will. If we move backward and forward in the time line of that universe all the decisions will remain the same, even though they were all made of free will.

I don't understand the difference then between free will and determinism. Educate me .

Burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. It isn't exclusive to a positive claim. There most be evidence supporting the affirmation or the denial of something. If someone claimed evolution was true 2000 years ago, and had no evidence at the given time supporting it, I cannot deny the existence of evolution at that time on the basis of his lack of evidence. By denying his notion of evolution, I now have made a claim, and the burden of proof is now shared between both.

On the other hand, if I simply told him that there is not enough evidence supporting his claim for it to be considered as truth, I would share no burden of proof. I am open to arriving back on the issue once more evidence is found in favor of his claim.

Asserting that "I don't know" is not a claim.

You don't know about something thats' mere existence is founded in religious holy books. Your argument is bunk, simply.

Again, you sound facetious giving the idea of god a fair look aside from the obvious historical, anthropological, and political importance.

There is no basis otherwise. It's not a positive claim to disregard the possibility of a god. You have yet to bring forth a reason to treat the topic as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjorn_248

This is blurring the line between what free will is and what determinism to me.

Let's say (just because I like to say it, however irrelevant it is) that there are an infinite number of universes containing all possibilities between them (as I said earlier). Within one universe one person makes all their decisions of their own free will. If we move backward and forward in the time line of that universe all the decisions will remain the same, even though they were all made of free will.

I don't understand the difference then between free will and determinism. Educate me .

The difference is you cannot always distinguish with surety, if anything with the intent of being free-willed is actually, free of will; it then becomes a game of appearance and perception.

The example davo gave of the crime scene with influencing by one's own conviction upon another without that identity coming to know that the whole event was rigged from the beginning.

The only thing I do claim is that many of the religious propositions for the origin of the universe are untrue because they aren't consistent with science we do currently know and logic. I have burden of proof with that statement, and I think it holds up rather well.

And I on the other hand would say there actually is some very good evidence in favor of intelligent design, and in fact your "proof" doesn't hold up that well at all.

In fact, I would say if you're playing the role of a true agnostic, you should say, "I can't know for sure what caused the origin of the universe, but at this point and time God does seem to be the best explanation because it is the best supported explanation by science and philosophy."

Bold statement right? Watch this video for the support to this statement.

Brief summary of what William Craig's (and many other's within the theistic scientific community) position:

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

The universe began to exist (meaning a finite universe, a theory widely accepted throughout the scientific community at this point).

The universe has a cause.

The creation of the universe was the beginning of space and time, therefore the cause of the creation of the universe must be an un-caused, space-less, timeless, and immaterial being.

There are only two things that fit this description. Something that is either abstract, or an intelligent mind.

Something that is abstract (such as a number, or color) cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe must be an intelligent mind.

This mind must be personal. If it were impersonal, it could not cause a temporal creation such as the universe, but only other eternal creations such as itself. Only a personal mind that is infinite, could cause something finite, because only a personal infinite mind could freely choose to cause something finite without any antecedent, determining conditions.

This is blurring the line between what free will is and what determinism to me.

Let's say (just because I like to say it, however irrelevant it is) that there are an infinite number of universes containing all possibilities between them (as I said earlier). Within one universe one person makes all their decisions of their own free will. If we move backward and forward in the time line of that universe all the decisions will remain the same, even though they were all made of free will.

I don't understand the difference then between free will and determinism. Educate me .

How do you define free will? I define it as the ability to do otherwise, basically. When action is infallibly foreknown, there's no possibility to do other than what was foreknown, by definition.

The issue is that if the "timeline" of future events can even be known, free will is nonexistent.

You don't know about something thats' mere existence is founded in religious holy books. Your argument is bunk, simply.

Again, you sound facetious giving the idea of god a fair look aside from the obvious historical, anthropological, and political importance.

There is no basis otherwise. It's not a positive claim to disregard the possibility of a god. You have yet to bring forth a reason to treat the topic as such.

When the religious book has inherent contradictions with itself and with science, not at all. I accept burden of proof when I make the notion that "X religion is not true" and I can defend it on that basis.

It isn't facetious? I'm not claiming intelligent design to be true nor am I quantifying the possibility of it being correct. Right now, it would be irrational to make that claim. But we don't have the evidence to dismiss the notion entirely right now.

Burden of proof is not exclusive to positive claims. It is assigned to any claim. When you negate something, you share BOP. There is a huge difference between negating X and asserting that there is not sufficient evidence for X to be proven true at the given moment.

And I on the other hand would say there actually is some very good evidence in favor of intelligent design, and in fact you're "proof" doesn't hold up that well at all.

lolololololololol!

Quote:

In fact, I would say if you're playing the role of a true agnostic, you should say, "I can't know for sure what caused the origin of the universe, but at this point and time God does seem to be the best explanation because it is the best supported explanation by science and philosophy."

Agnosticism is more about the nature knowledge and epistemological than it is ontological.

Quote:

Bold statement right? Watch this video for the support to this statement.

It's probably best to not ever bring up Craig in a debate.

Quote:

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

The universe began to exist (meaning a finite universe, a theory widely accepted throughout the scientific community at this point).

The universe has a cause.

The creation of the universe was the beginning of space and time, therefore the cause of the creation of the universe must be an un-caused, space-less, timeless, and immaterial being.

There are only two things that fit this description. Something that is either abstract, or an intelligent mind.

Something that is abstract (such as a number, or color) cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe must be an intelligent mind.

This mind must be personal. If it were impersonal, it could not cause a temporal creation such as the universe, but only other eternal creations such as itself. Only a personal mind that is infinite, could cause something finite, because only a personal infinite mind could freely choose to cause something finite without any antecedent, determining conditions.

1. No.
2. This point demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of cosmology.
3. A mechanistic explanation suffices.
4. This point demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of cosmology. Where's the channel connecting the material to the immaterial? By virtue of what can they interact in the first place? Magic?
5. The color blue makes me happy. It seems to me that you're saying something that is immaterial cannot affect something that is material. Huh.
7. Holy sh.t huge unfounded leap my god so much handwaving and misuse of terms I sh.t a castle.

When the religious book has inherent contradictions with itself and with science, not at all. I accept burden of proof when I make the notion that "X religion is not true" and I can defend it on that basis.

It isn't facetious? I'm not claiming intelligent design to be true nor am I quantifying the possibility of it being correct. Right now, it would be irrational to make that claim. But we don't have the evidence to dismiss the notion entirely right now.

Burden of proof is not exclusive to positive claims. It is assigned to any claim. When you negate something, you share BOP. There is a huge difference between negating X and asserting that there is not sufficient evidence for X to be proven true at the given moment.

You're getting away from the simple point I'm asking of why are you even putting god on the table to begin with?

God is/can only be held merely as a belief for you because of the possibility of there being a god. I'm asking specifically what belongs to that belief that is above and beyond (with good reason) the normal possibility for anything imaginable to exist.

In fact, I would say if you're playing the role of a true agnostic, you should say, "I can't know for sure what caused the origin of the universe, but at this point and time God does seem to be the best explanation because it is the best supported explanation by science and philosophy."

On what basis should I say that? How is it best supported by science and philosophy when there is literally no god in science at the present moment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nv1ncible

Bold statement right? Watch this video for the support to this statement.

His argument was essentially argument from ignorance. It's moot. Infinity is not a number, it is theoretical. It cannot be quantified. The fact that he's trying to subtract a non quantified value from itself reflects a lack of understanding of math on his end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nv1ncible

Brief summary of what William Craig's (and many other's within the theistic scientific community) position:

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Erm, on what basis? Quantum Physics disagrees...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nv1ncible

The universe began to exist (meaning a finite universe, a theory widely accepted throughout the scientific community at this point).

The universe has a cause.

The creation of the universe was the beginning of space and time, therefore the cause of the creation of the universe must be an un-caused, space-less, timeless, and immaterial being.

There are only two things that fit this description. Something that is either abstract, or an intelligent mind.

Something that is abstract (such as a number, or color) cannot cause anything, therefore the cause of the universe must be an intelligent mind.

This mind must be personal. If it were impersonal, it could not cause a temporal creation such as the universe, but only other eternal creations such as itself. Only a personal mind that is infinite, could cause something finite, because only a personal infinite mind could freely choose to cause something finite without any antecedent, determining conditions.

The unwarranted presumption of everything existing "having a cause" creates a domino effect on all of his other points.

You're getting away from the simple point I'm asking of why are you even putting god on the table to begin with?

God is/can only be held merely as a belief for you because of the possibility of there being a god. I'm asking specifically what belongs to that belief that is above and beyond (with good reason) the normal possibility for anything imaginable to exist.

We agree more than you think, I simply don't feel we have enough current evidence to completely negate the concept of god. You will find that in nearly all arguments affirming a particular god, I will be on your side.